Mr. Speaker, 18 years ago, Quebec signed an agreement not to harmonize the GST with its sales tax, but to collect both taxes. This arrangement is completely different from what was done with the other provinces.

If Quebec wants an agreement like that concluded with the other provinces, which honours the spirit of our obligations to the other provinces, we are prepared to look at it. We are holding discussions in good faith.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is saying that Quebec has not harmonized its tax with the GST. In the 2006 budget, the Conservatives said that Quebec did so. In one of these instances, they were not telling the truth, to put it mildly

Quebec has resolved all the issues that were raised. Why not provide compensation? Is collecting the tax the real problem? The Prime Minister should say so clearly.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to revisiting the issue of Quebec's collecting the GST, the government wants to strip Quebeckers of another financial tool by establishing a single securities commission. Although participation would be voluntary, in reality it would mean the disappearance of the Autorité des marchés financiers and the transfer of Quebec's regulatory authority to Ontario.

Why is the Conservative government attacking Quebec's economic and financial autonomy?

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, participation in the Canadian securities commission is voluntary. Only those provinces that wish to participate will be included. That means Ontario, British Columbia and a number of others, but not Quebec. It is up to Quebec to decide.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to undermining Quebec's autonomy, it seems already that the creation of a single securities commission will be a very expensive bureaucratic monster. You have to be totally out of touch with reality to want to waste $161 million in these times of record deficits.

Is the government's real objective to force all AMF stakeholders and users to do business with English voice mail in Toronto, to trump unanimous resolutions by the Quebec's National Assembly, in short, to dismantle Montreal's financial hub?

Mr. Speaker, we are at a stage where we want better international regulation. In terms of our financial sector, we are looking to improve regulations in Canada.

This is a provincial jurisdiction. It is up to Ontario and British Columbia, not Quebec, to decide if they wish to collaborate with the federal government in this matter. The Quebec government can only make decisions for Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was on this side of the House in the opposition, he used to state, with considerable conviction, that the prime minister, any prime minister, had a moral obligation to respect the will of the House.

Yesterday, the House expressed itself very clearly in stating that the Prime Minister shall not seek a prorogation of beyond seven days from the Government General without the express support, through a resolution, of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I gather it has been the will of the House to replace the government with an unelected coalition. If that is indeed the will of the House, the members know they have to get a mandate from the people of Canada and they cannot tinker with the House rules to work around that reality.

When we speak about the will of the House, I understand pretty clearly from this question period that the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois want to end the ten percenter program outside of our own ridings. Is this also a position of the House that the NDP is prepared to endorse?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just informed us that he will not respect the will of the House.

Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister if his government's position was that contraception does not save lives. He refused to respond. The Federation of Medical Women of Canada has a clear position on this issue. The World Health Organization, USAID and Action Canada for Population and Development have all said that contraception saves lives.

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is clear. I believe the minister answered this question. The government is looking to work with G8 countries to save lives, to save mothers and children throughout the world. We are not closing the door on any option, including contraception. However, we do not wish to debate abortion in this place or elsewhere.

Once again, I ask the leader of the NDP to join with the other parties and endorse the end of the ten percenter program outside our ridings.

Mr. Speaker, what we have learned now is that the government will leave its options open.

I want to ask an extremely clear question of the Prime Minister so Canadians as well as the other countries coming to the G8 summit can know where Canada is going to stand.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the broad sweep of opinion that is extremely clear, that contraception saves lives? The initiative to put the health of women and children into the forefront in these discussions is something we applaud, but it is extremely important the Prime Minister answer this question.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have pretty clearly answered the question. I do not think I could be clearer.

On the other hand, the leader of the NDP talks about respecting the will of the House. My question is this. Does he respect the votes that his own party casts in the House of Commons? His own party voted a couple of days ago to abolish the ten percenter program for mailings outside of our own ridings. The other three parties apparently support that. Does the leader of the NDP still support that or not?

Mr. Speaker, let me again be very clear and reiterate that at the G8 the leaders will discuss maternal and child health. In fact, as I have articulated, there are no doors being closed even including contraception. There will be fulsome discussion and they will chart a way forward to help save the lives of mothers and children.

Mr. Speaker, again, I do not know how to be more clear. I thank the member for adding some more information that will be taken into consideration by all the G8 leaders. In fact, as I said, they will discuss this and they will chart the way forward to help mothers and children and to save their lives.

For the member, we do have the facts. We know that most of the women and children who are now dying are occurring in Africa and in Southeast Asia. That is the problem we want to—

Mr. Speaker, according to a lawyer for Amnesty International, Mr. Iacobucci will simply be providing a second opinion that could possibly take two years. Britain has stopped all detainee transfers. It is concerned about torture right now.

The Conservative government continues to transfer detainees to possible torture. Why? Why will it not call a public inquiry and end this sordid spectacle?

Rob NicholsonConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I see the Liberal Party is back on message. No one wants to jeopardize public safety or national security and nobody wants any information released that might jeopardize the men and women who serve us in Afghanistan.

Therefore, I call on the hon. member to put confidence in Mr. Iacobucci. Let him do his job and support the work he is about to do.

Mr. Speaker, the government may have forgotten, but people remember that months ago the International Criminal Court prosecutor in The Hague initiated a preliminary investigation into the conduct of the Canadian government with regard to torture. Yet the government continues to transfer detainees to a serious and substantial risk of torture. The prosecutor may commence a full criminal investigation. A public inquiry may persuade the prosecutor to not commence a full criminal investigation.

Rob NicholsonConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, first, a public inquiry is not necessary and, as the hon. member knows, public inquiries take a great deal of time. We want a more expeditious process to assist in this matter. We all want to protect public safety in our country.

I ask the hon. member to put confidence in Mr. Iacobucci. He deserves it and he should have the support of all hon. members.

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. It is the action of a minister who is listening to what people are saying about the problems they are facing. I met with representatives from the association of processors and I spoke with a number of people who explained to me that applying the 98% standard was creating problems for them.

We agreed to keep this standard. Now, we will be talking with them about excluding certain products linked to food preservation such as salt, sugar and spices. That will be clear for consumers, and it will also allow processors to resolve their problems.

Mr. Speaker, the least we can say is that the minister engages in passive listening. He claims that he wants to consult with people, yet he has already decided what will be done. He does not need to hold another consultation to find out what the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food showed two years ago, namely that the consensus is to set the standard at 85%.

Will the real Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stop wasting the agri-food sector's time and money, face facts and change the disputed standard, as producers, processors and consumers are demanding?